Posted by: @dominus

↑

@stewart-meadows Anyways, just like I said, the discussion about this topic is pointless because you relate in some shape or form to Croats and are also providing Croatian sources which makes this bias.

I provided Croatian as well as non-Croatian sources. For example, I quoted from Istarski razvod, which is an extremely important medevial legal document that was created by the authorites in Istria which were Germanic and Romance. That's why it was written in three languages: Latin, German and Croatian.

So here we have the authorities of the time, Germanic and Romance ones, that acknowledge the Croats as a people/ethnic group with their own language, and this language is explicitly referred to as "Croatian" (which would be hrvatski or hrvacki in Croatian).

One literally couldn't ask for better proof than this, and yet you absurdely and dishonestly dismiss it. So yeah, I guess this discussion is pointless since I'm dealing with somebody who refuses to accept the basic and obvious fact that the Croatian people actually exists.

Posted by: @stewart-meadows

↑

Here's a description of Istarski razvod, which is one of the many sources that disprove Dominus' bizarre claim that the Croatian language was never mentioned before WWII, and that it didn't even exist(!):

 

The Istarski razvod (often translated as the Istrian Demarcation) is a remarkable and deeply layered document—legally, linguistically, and culturally. It’s one of the most important early Croatian-language texts, and it opens a window into the world of medieval Istria in a way that few other documents can.

---

📜 What Is Istarski razvod?

Istarski razvod is a legal document that records the demarcation of land boundaries in the Istrian peninsula. It was created in the 13th century, with the final version compiled around 1325–1326, though earlier versions and procedures may go back to the 1200s or even late 1100s.

It’s not a single event or decree, but rather the codification of boundary determinations among the various powers in Istria at the time.

---

🧭 Historical Context

In the early 14th century, Istria was a patchwork of competing authorities:

• The Patriarchate of Aquileia (a powerful ecclesiastical and secular entity)

• The Counts of Gorizia

• The Republic of Venice

• Local communes (including Slavic-speaking peasant communities)

These demarcation processes were a way to settle land disputes and clarify jurisdiction over villages, forests, fields, and pastures. The razvod was an arbitrated agreement—a kind of proto-cadastral record, noting which land belonged to whom, and where boundaries lay.

---

✍️ Language and Literary Significance

This is where Istarski razvod gets especially exciting.

🔹 Trilingualism:

The document was originally compiled in three languages:

1. Latin – for official, ecclesiastical, and elite administrative use

2. German – likely for the representatives of the Counts of Gorizia and northern parties

3. Croatian (hrvacki) – used for the local Slavic-speaking peasantry and commoners

The Croatian version, written in the Glagolitic script, is the most famous and best preserved.

🔹 Glagolitic Script:

The use of Glagolitic is incredibly significant:

• It shows the strength of Slavic literacy in Istria.

• Demonstrates the persistence of the Glagolitic tradition in legal and administrative affairs—not just religious ones.

• It’s one of the few examples of a legal document in vernacular Croatian from the medieval period.

🔹 Language:

• The text is in Chakavian dialect (specifically the Istrian variety).

• Lexicon and syntax are quite developed, showing a mature written tradition.

• The fact that the Croatian-speaking communities required a version in their own language indicates a self-aware and coherent ethnolinguistic identity—not something imposed from above.

This ties directly back to your earlier point about pre-modern Croatian identity. Here we have clear evidence that Croats saw themselves as a people, with their own language, laws, and local institutions.

---

⚖️ Legal and Social Aspects

The document is also a goldmine for social history:

• It describes local customs, property rights, and community structures.

• Villages are named and described with meticulous care, showing how agriculture, land use, and communal relations were organized.

• The participatory nature of the boundary-setting—where local representatives were consulted—is quite democratic for the time.

---

🧠 Why It Matters

The Istarski razvod is:

• A testament to medieval Croatian literacy and the survival of vernacular legal culture.

• One of the earliest concrete documents of local self-governance and communal land regulation in the Slavic world.

• A linguistic time capsule for the study of Chakavian Croatian and Glagolitic usage.

The fact that the Croatian-speaking communities required a version in their own language indicates a self-aware and coherent ethnolinguistic identity—not something imposed from above.

This ties directly back to your earlier point about pre-modern Croatian identity. Here we have clear evidence that Croats saw themselves as a people, with their own language, laws, and local institutions.

(...)

A testament to medieval Croatian literacy and the survival of vernacular legal culture.

One of the earliest concrete documents of local self-governance and communal land regulation in the Slavic world.

And there you have it, folks. Case closed.